Simulation of Lifted Diesel Sprays using a newly developed Combined Level-set Flamelet Model
S.Vogel1*, N.Peters1
1Institute for Combustion Technology RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Under lower temperature or very high Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) the stabilization at the lift-off length (LOL) is caused by premixed flame propagation. A newly developed G-equation model coupled with Multiple Representative Interactive Flamelets (G-MRIF) is used to predict multiple auto-ignitions as well as premixed flame propagation. How- ever at high temperatures the numerical simulations strongly indicate that the lift-off length (LOL) is defined by auto- ignition.
* Corresponding author: [email protected] Towards Clean Diesel Engines, TCDE2009
Introduction
This paper deals with the improvement of mod- els for Diesel sprays. Pickett et al. [1, 2] observed that for very small Diesel sprays no detectable amount of soot is formed inside the flame. The reason for this is the spatial separation of the fuel- rich zones in the spray from the diffusion flame downstream. Because the lift-off length (LOL) is large there is enough time available to premix oxi- dizer and fuel. This results in a leaner and more premixed-like combustion, where little soot is formed. For this beneficial kind of combustion mode to occur, it is necessary that the resulting LOL is much larger than the liquid penetration length of the fuel.
Computational Model
The CFD code used in this work is AC-FluX (formerly known as GMTEC), a flow solver based on Finite Volume methods [3] which employs un- structured, mostly hexahedral meshes. AC-FluX is documented in detail by Khalighi et al. [4] and in particular by Ewald et al. [5]. AC-FluX solves for the partial differential equations of continuity, the Navier-Stokes equations, an equation for the total enthalpy, and two equations modeling the turbu- lence (k-epsilon-model).
The applied spray model is a Discrete Droplet Model (DDM) and is the standard technique for current combustion codes. The applied breakup model (Kelvin-Helmholtz-Rayleigh-Taylor) was developed at the Engine Research Center (ERC), and was first introduced by Patterson and Reitz [6].
Collision and evaporation are based on the work by Amsden et al. [7].
A surrogate fuel for Diesel called IDEA consist- ing of 70% n-decane and 30% α-methyl- naphthalene (in volume) was developed within the Integrated Development on Engine Assessment (IDEA) project. IDEA has nearly the same chemical and physical behavior as European Diesel. The complete chemical reaction mechanism comprises 999 elementary reactions and 116 chemical spe- cies. The formation, growth, and oxidation of soot particles is described by a kinetically based model.
A method using statistical moments is employed according to Mauß [8] and Frenklach and Harris [9].
Laminar flame speeds were calculated using the in-house code Flamemaster [10]. For these calculations the previously described IDEA me- chanism was used. These calculations show that n-decane is consumed during first auto-ignition, in contrast to α-methyl-naphthalene, which is quite stable. During this investigation, flame speeds then were calculated based on the full mechanism for situations before and after first-stage auto-ignition.
A similar investigation for n-heptane has been done by Honnet and Peters [11]. If the upstream conditions are those after first-stage ignition, calcu- lations fo n-heptane at 1 atm had shown a signifi- cant increase in laminar flame speed. The resulting flame speed at the elevated pressures for the IDEA fuel is not very different for the two cases;
therefore it is possible to use the speed before auto-ignition. Hence, only one laminar flame speed table was used in this paper; an example for 50 bar is shown in Fig. 2. This flame speed calcula- tions are used to fit splines for a flame speed table according to Ewald [12]. Therefore gaps as they appear in Fig. 1, which are caused by non- converging calculations, are filled.
Fig. 1: Laminar flame speeds at 50 bar
For non-premixed combustion, oxidator and fuel are mixed during combustion. In conventional Di- esel modes, the heat release is mainly controlled by diffusion and evaporation. Evaporation is con- trolled by the injection rate (mass-flow rate, injec- tion velocity) and by the resulting breakup effect.
The Representative Interactive Flamelet concept (RIF) [13] allows taking elementary chemistry into account by solving the flamelet equations for the temperature and many chemical species. There- fore, a much more complex chemistry can be solved. The turbulent flow provides the scalar dis- sipation rate which is a parameter in the flamelet equations χ and the average pressure p. The ex- tended RIF concept G-equation model coupled with Multiple Representative Interactive Flamelets (G-MRIF) to be used here subdivides the injected fuel mass during the time of injection and thereby defines different flamelets. Additionally it also de- scribes the flame propagation through the G- equation which tracks the turbulent flame front The injected fuel is portioned by injection timing into different fuel classes, which can be seen in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2: Definition of the flamelets according to the in- jection time, based on mass criteria
The G-equation model is based on the assump- tion that the instantaneous, turbulent flame, being an ensemble of laminar flamelets, is a thin reac- tive-diffusion layer, embedded in an inert turbulent flow field. The structure of the laminar flame is resolved by the laminar flame speed calculations employing finite-rate chemistry, which provide the laminar bruning velocity sL and the laminar flame thickness lF. The G-equation model is not only applicable in the corrugated flamelet regime, but also in the thin reaction zone regime, since the effect of turbulence on the structure of the flame- lets can be taken into account [13]. After a certain temperature is reached through auto-ignition, a flame front is initialized using the G-equation ap- proach. In the G-MRIF model two chemical states are present for every injected flamelet. One is the solution in front of the flame front (in the stage of
auto-ignition), and the other state is behind the flame front (burning). The two flamelet solutions are identical untill a significant fuel mass of a cer- tain injection reaches a flame front. If a certain amount gets burnt by the turbulent flame front, one of the flamelet pairs is artificially auto-ignited. The remaining fuel mass is still able to auto-ignite. If a natural auto-ignition happens, the G-field is reinitia- lized.
Experimental setup of the Aachen vessels The Aachen measurements presented in this work were conducted in two different constant- flow, high-pressure, high-temperature vessels. The pressure was set up to 50 bar and the temperature to 800 K. The energizing duration was 3.5 ms for all investigated cases. The air stream consisted of pure air and Diesel was used as fuel. The data was acquired from two different vessels. One was operated by the Lehr- und Forschungsgebiet La- ser-Messverfahren in der Thermofluiddynamik (LTFD) and the other by the Lehrstuhl für Wärme- und Stoffübertragung (WSA). Data on the investi- gated nozzles may be found in table (1).
Tab. 1: Investigated nozzles
OH was measured using chemiluminescence as described in Pauls et al. [14]. The soot mea- surement was made using Laser Induced Incan- descence (LII) as described in Vogel et al. [15]
Simulation setup
The computational domain is 18 cm long and has a diameter of 12 cm. The grid has a resolution of about 2.4 mm at the investigated area. Through local refinement using a maximum level of 3, the resulting grid dimension is about 0.3 mm within the main combustion region. Fig. 3 shows the compu- tational domain and the applied local refinement, which allows a very good grid resolution in the area of interest. The 131 μm nozzle at 1350 bar injection pressure was used to calibrate the injec- tion parameter. The initial injection parameters were applied according to Weber et al. [16].
A slight recalibration was necessary to adopt the spray parameters to the used grid. The values are sufficient for the used application. An improved
calibration is made impossible by computational restrictions (runtime is over two weeks for a single case). The ambient condition was chosen as T = 800 K and p = 50 bar according to the experiment.
The injection quantities and the injection rates were taken from Bosch-Tube data at p = 600 bar, 900 bar, and 1350 bar injection pressure using standard Diesel fuel. The spray parameters were adopted to match the simulated liquid and gaseous penetration with the experiment and were applied for the whole pressure range. The temperature at which the turbulent flame front is initialized is cho- sen to predict the LOL. This temperature is kept constant for all Aachen simulations. The LOL is defined as the shortest distance between the noz- zle and the mean turbulent flame front.
Fig. 3: Cutout of the computational grid
Results and Discussions
Tab. 2: Experimental and simulated LOL
All results are shown in Tab. 2. The results show the right general trend. There are two things noticeable. First, the LOL is increasing with de- creasing nozzle diameter. Second, the decrease of the LOL for the 118 μm nozzle in the simulation is obvious. In the experiments, a decrease of the LOL for 270 the 118 μm nozzle was found at 750 bar for Diesel and at 1100 bar for the IDEA mix- ture. For all investigated conditions of the Aachen combustion vessel, the turbulent premixed flame is stabilized by auto-ignition and therefore this kind of
combustion mode is called Auto-Ignition-Induced Flame Front (AIIF) by the authors. Recent results show separated second auto-ignition spots be- tween the flame front and the nozzle, which is a strong indicator that in the experiments the LOL is also stabilized by auto-ignition, rather than by tur- bulent flame propagation.
Reference
[1] L. Pickett and D. Siebers. Non-Sooting, Low Flame Temperature Mixing-Controlled DI Diesel Combus- tion. Paper No. SAE 2004-01-1399, 2004.
[2] L. Pickett, D. Siebers, and C. Idicheria. Relationship between ignition process and the lift-off length of di- esel fuel jets. Paper No. SAE 2005-01-3843, 2005.
[3] J. H. Ferziger and M. Peric. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Springer, 2002.
[4] B. Khalighi, S. H. El Thary, D. C. Haworth, and M. S.
Huebler. Computation and Measurement of Flow and Combustion in a Four-Valve Engine with Intake Vari- ations. Paper No. SAE 950287, 1995.
[5] J. Ewald, F. Freikamp, G. Paczko, J. Weber, D. C.
Haworth, and N. Peters. GMTEC: GMTEC Develop- ers Manual. Technical report, Advanced Combustion GmbH, 2003.
[6] M. Patterson and R. Reitz. Modeling the Effects of Fuel Spray Characteristics on Diesel Engine Com- bustion and Emission. Paper No. SAE 980131, 1998.
[7] A. A. Amsden, P. J. O’Rourke, and T. D. Butler. KIVA II: A Computer Program for Chemically Reactive Flows with Sprays. Technical Report LA-11560-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratories, 1989.
[8] F. Mauß. Entwicklung eines kinetischen Modells der Rußbildung mit schneller Polymerisation. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, 1997.
[9] M. Frenklach and S. J. Harris. Aerosol dynamics modeling using the method of moments. J. Coll. In- terf. Sci., 118:252–261, 1987.
[10] H. Pitsch. Flamemaster, a c++ computer program for 0d combustion and 1d laminar flame calculations.
Technical report, 2004.
[11] S. Honnet and N. Peters. Burning velocity of n- heptane before and after the first stage ignition. Eu- ropean Combustion Meeting, 2003.
[12] J. Ewald. A Level Set Based Flamelet Model for the Prediction of Combustion in Homogeneous Charge and Direct Injection Spark Ignition Engines. PhD the- sis, RWTH Aachen, 2006.
[13] N. Peters. Turbulent Combustion. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2000.
[14] C. Pauls, S. Vogel, G. Grünefeld, and N. Peters.
Combined Simulations and OHChemiluminescence Measurements of the Combustion Process Using Dif- ferent Fuelsunder Diesel-Engine like Conditions. Pa- per No. SAE 2007-01-0020, 2007.
[15] S. Vogel, C. Hasse, J. Gronki, S. Anderson, N.
Peters, J. Wolfrum, and C. Schulz. Numerical simula- tion and laser-based imaging of mixture formation, ignition and soot formation in a diesel spray. In Proc.
Combust. Inst., volume 30, pages 2029–2036. The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 2004.
[16] J. Weber. Optimization Methods for the Mixture Formation and Combustion Process in Diesel En- gines. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, 2008.